Rouxle Le Roux: Why her infamous Halloween costume could put her behind bars

A legal expert warns Rouxle Le Roux's infamous Halloween costume could put her behind bars.

Le Roux, 19, was sentenced to 11 months' home detention and 250 hours of community service for killing teenager Nathan Kraatskow in May.

But she faces court again after breaching her home detention by not answering the door twice when probation services came to check up on her.

And while she escaped jail during her original sentencing, Dr Bill Hodge, a professor of law at The University of Auckland, warns that this time "she could actually go inside".

Le Roux caused outage for her conduct after killing Nathan, in one instance posting images on Instagram of herself sitting at a bus stop.

"Only thing I'll be catching," she wrote with the hashtag "Canthurtemifigotnone" - apparently referring to no longer being allowed to drive.

And another one showed her in a Halloween prisoner outfit and was captioned "hide your children".

Le Roux in her infamous outfit.
Le Roux in her infamous outfit. Photo credit: Rouxle Le Roux / Instagram

Dr Hodge says Le Roux's remorse before her sentencing was one of the main reasons she avoided a prison sentence. But her "cavalier attitude" and current actions put her home detention at risk.

"I think the DCJ (district court judge) remembers the community outrage, partly because the original sentencing judge accepted the contrition, the guilt, the sorrow. But after that the judge didn't see the Halloween pictures saying 'lock up your children'," he told Newshub.

"It may that this DCJ will take that into account and say you were originally given the benefit of the doubt because of your remorse, and now I'm looking at your so-called remorse and I'm finding it less persuasive given current conduct.

"If I was her lawyer, I wouldn't want my client going before the DCJ remembering some of that public outrage, because DCJs remember that as well and it's in the books, she could go to jail."

Le Rou'x lawyer, Belinda Sellars QC told Newshub that Le Roux was at home but didn't hear the knocking due to nearby construction work.

But Dr Hodge says it's "totally up to the judge" if they believe that.

"If I were the judge, I guess they would want to hear from the probation officer. 'This is the sort of work I do and I don't lightly tap the finger, I knock hard' because this is the kind of phony excuse I hear all the time," he told Newshub.

"Whether the judge says well… you haven't committed the offence because you didn't hear it, that's totally a matter of credibility. And if I were Belinda I would be saying 'well, my client doesn't have too much credibility'."


Contact Newshub with your story tips: